‘No room for complacency’: Political experts discuss path forward after attempt to assassinate Trump

The assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump occurred amid decades of growing political division, unfettered access to firearms and online “rabbit holes” of extremism, Pittsburgh-area scholars said days after the shooting shook our country amid a bitter presidential campaign.

Trump, the Republican nominee, was grazed by a bullet Saturday during a rally in Butler County, north of Pittsburgh. A 20-year-old from Allegheny County is responsible. He and one rally attendee were also killed, and two other attendees were seriously injured.

To help make sense of the situation, PublicSource spoke with local scholars of political science and political violence about the assassination attempt and the effects it may have on our country’s divided political climate. Their responses, edited for brevity and clarity, are below.

How are you feeling in light of Saturday’s assassination attempt against Trump?

I was initially stunned. But, given our country’s history of gun violence — and, in particular, gun violence among young, white, angry men — and the absolute animosity toward Trump and his campaign, and the uneasiness around American politics right now, I’m surprised it hadn’t happened yet to one of the candidates.

I think this sort of anger and potential for violence exists on both sides. — Jennie Sweet-Cushman, associate professor of political science at Chatham University

In your view, what has led our country to this moment?

There’s no one factor. I would point to the growing political polarization, and the degradation of our political discourse. You see it in other countries. Also, the role of social media in making things worse. It’s so easy for people to get sucked into these virtual rabbit holes that become echo chambers. They end up interacting only with people who agree with them, even when some of these political ideas can be quite extreme.

And then, guns. For somebody who wants to engage in political violence, whatever their motivation, it’s far too easy for them to access powerful weapons. — Michael Kenney, director of the University of Pittsburgh’s Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies

It’s been a consistent escalation over the past 20 to 30 years, where we no longer just disagree, but we also demonize. We all know that fear is a powerful motivator. It’s not just enough anymore to talk about the differences between you and your opponent, but rather, you want to make your voters afraid of your opponent and what could happen. That leads to this. — Chris Bonneau, professor of political science at Pitt

How is the context around this assassination attempt similar to, or different from, others?

It’s hard to speak to trends. Whereas a lot of the other attempts really seemed to be an individual who had snapped or was motivated by their own anger, I think the political environment we’re in can cultivate individuals to take these measures as an expression of greater political frustration. That’s a tinderbox for additional acts like this that I’m quite concerned about.

I don’t want to explicitly blame Trump for this violence. But here is the profile of a candidate and a former president who, when given the choice to de-escalate political violence or the potential for political violence, has ramped up the fever around it. Jan. 6 was a direct result. That is where there is a difference: Trump seems to relish the threat, if not the actual acts, and cultivates that to garner his support.

And, he has really high levels of support among people who are supportive of Second Amendment rights and who own firearms, and who maybe are inclined to think we are at a place in American politics where violence may be the only answer to protect the country. I think that’s misguided, and I think Trump is culpable in that. — Sweet-Cushman

Calling our political opponents “the enemy” is not what we need as a society. If that rhetoric doesn’t change from our political leaders, we may very well see more incidents. I’m not just talking about Republicans. The way the Democrats are portraying a second Trump presidency as an existential threat — I know many people believe that, but I don’t think that helps. — Kenney

What do you make of the responses that we’ve seen locally and nationally?

Nationally, the vast majority of responses have been exactly what you would hope, condemning violence. You get, occasionally, people like [Republican vice presidential nominee and U.S. Sen.] J.D. Vance or [Republican Rep. Mike] Collins , from Georgia, who want to blame Democrats. — Bonneau

I’m most immediately concerned about how people, both elected officials and just everyday people, are responding to this. Nobody is a ballistics expert, or a presidential security expert, and all of these facts are far, far from emerging when people start spinning tales of motive, and “Who’s to blame?” and “Trump set it up as a stunt.”

Everybody needs to relax for a minute and let the process unfold so we can see where the mistakes were made, and perhaps what the motive was of the shooter. Then, people can be held accountable for the role that they played, if any.

We shouldn’t be blaming specific elected officials for the actions of the shooter. We need to look at the problems more systematically. A lot of our political leaders have come out, on both sides, and condemned political violence. That’s really important. — Sweet-Cushman

All this talk about Republicans, this, Democrats, that — it could all be a moot point. We see more and more, especially among young, lone actors that engage in political violence, that their ideological motivation is not coherent. There’s a new term to describe it: salad bar ideology. They draw on different ideas on the far right, on the far left, religious, secular.

Apart from that, there are people that really aren’t ideological at all; they just want fame. There’s any number of things that could have motivated this person that are not ideological, or if they are ideological, they’re so confusing that it can’t be described as Republican or Democratic. — Kenney

How do you think the attack will shape voters’ perceptions of Trump, or the election?

I saw some immediate reactions of, “Oh, this will win him the election.” I think those predictions are misplaced. Ninety or ninety-plus percent of the electorate has had their mind made up. Of course, the 10% who may not vote decides elections in a lot of places, so that matters.

But nobody who was anti-Trump before he was shot is pro-Trump right now.

— Sweet-Cushman

What should our political leaders do to at least begin healing the divisions in our country?

I think most immediately, our political leaders need to continue to step up and help us turn down the temperature and tone down the political rhetoric. I’ve been encouraged by statements made by President [Joe] Biden, even by former President Trump, about unity and coming together. We need more of this.

We all have a role to play, and I hope we come together and do it. Otherwise, I fear for the future of our country. — Kenney

Do you believe it’s possible to heal the divisions?

Unfortunately, I think things have to get a lot worse. We’re still moving away from one another at this point, and I don’t know what needs to happen for people to start moving toward one another.

We can no longer even have these conversations with one another. We’ve taken ourselves out of spaces where they happen, for the most part, and we certainly don’t go looking for them. If you’re not having the conversations, you unlearn those skills. — Sweet-Cushman

I do. We’ve actually been through worse. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, and in the early-to-mid 1990s, the amount of political violence, including assassination, was significantly higher in the U.S. than it is today.

We are now in a situation, again, where we are confronted with worsening polarization and, in some measures, increasing political violence.

There’s certainly no room for complacency. All of us really need to look at our behavior and ask ourselves, “Are we creating the society we want to live in?” — Kenney

Emma Folts covers higher education at PublicSource, in partnership with Open Campus. She can be reached at emma@publicsource.org .

The post ‘No room for complacency’: Political experts discuss path forward after attempt to assassinate Trump appeared first on PublicSource . PublicSource is a nonprofit news organization serving the Pittsburgh region. Visit www.publicsource.org to read more.